Religions : Legitimate vs otherwise

[Cain]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think if your "religion" forces you to pay money to achieve higher "levels" of membership then it's a joke.

I don't get this either. All religions are funded in some way, some mandatory, some not. Why not reward those who do contribute more of a necessary evil (money)?

And regardless, I'm not sure how that detracts or adds to a religion. Isn't a compulsory tax a part of islam?

[Pagal4321]

I'm a Muslim and I'd have to say I'm tolerant to any and all religions.

And hey, if you want to practice some crazy religions, it's your call. No matter how crazy I think they maybe.

As for the Qur'an, when it was written I'd have to say the world was a completely different place, so to pick it up and start to apply it to the modern day world is just downright stupid. To follow the Qur'an word for word and then claim to do crazy things in the name is Islam is how these misconceptions pop up in modern day society.

Just my two cents.

[evman150]

I'm going to make you look even stupider than your statement seems on the surface, which is saying a lot:

religion x to mainstream religion x = the same thing, only more intensified.

doggy poo to sandwich = completely different things, a significant transformation

Faulty logic!

You are saying something with no legitimacy (bull****, if you will) grows into legitimacy over time.

I mean, I guess when you say legitimacy I'm thinking that that entails a certain truth claim?

Like an illegitimate religion is one that makes a demonstrably false truth claim, a more legitimate religion is one that makes a dubious truth claim, and a legitimate one makes a truth claim that is not demonstrably false and is even plausible, if unlikely.

But truth claims are not, ceteris paribus, subject to evolution, so then doesn't your argument fall apart? Or is there something beyond a truth claim going on in "legitimacy"? I think we have to define our terms here.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by evman150

You are saying something with no legitimacy (bull****, if you will) grows into legitimacy over time.

I mean, I guess when you say legitimacy I'm thinking that that entails a certain truth claim?

Like an illegitimate religion is one that makes a demonstrably false truth claim, a more legitimate religion is one that makes a dubious truth claim, and a legitimate one makes a truth claim that is not demonstrably false and is even plausible, if unlikely.

But truth claims are not, ceteris paribus, subject to evolution, so then doesn't your argument fall apart? Or is there something beyond a truth claim going on in "legitimacy"? I think we have to define our terms here.

Ohhhhh, Evman's using Latin! How intelligent he is!

Nowhere did I say for certain that a religion that is not mainstream would develop into something more common. You may wish to read my post again. See "maybe scientology will become mainstream in a 100 years or so, maybe it will fizzle out".

Also in terms of defining what truth is in terms of religion, well, if it was that easy we wouldn't need this thread. Many different people are trying to decide what religions have a truth claim, hence we have many different religions. Again, read my part on "faith" and "knowledge".

I hope your next post is intelligently designed! ::cough,cough!::

[evman150]

Making fun of someone for using a word or phrase that better fits what he is trying to say (using a round block for a round hole instead of forcing a square block into a round hole) is pretty low.

I'm sorry for utilizing my knowledge base in an effort to best explain my views. The fact you not only attacked me on that basis, but that it was the first thing you said, says a lot about you.

I always find it amusing when people make fun of somebody for saying something intelligent, or for using a "big word" properly (and in good taste) or knowing too much. It's what might be called an ad hominem scientia, a truly bizarre attack which only serves to make the attacker look small, petty and unintelligent.

[evman150]

I'm asking you to define "legitimate" in terms of religions.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

I'm asking you to define "legitimate" in terms of religions.

I think the question falls apart based on his agnostic w/ atheist leanings stance. Given his belief system, how can ANY religion be legitimate?

I think he needs to reword the question rather than define that term.

[photon]

Lets keep to the topic of the thread, it's about how a government would tell religion A that it is recognized as such according to the laws and religion B isn't.

If you want to have a discussion about religion itself being worthwhile, start another thread.

[evman150]

Perhaps, but we are not defining legitimate, we are defining legitimate in terms of something else. Running into some semantics problems.



But you're right, a better word may be appropriate.

[SebC]

To me "legitimate religion" is an oxymoron. I was going to point that out in the other thread too.

[peter12]

Legitimate religion...

I'm an agnostic. I reject the literal teachings of any church, but I'm also not completely convinced by the reductionism of the materialist perspective.

Religion or spirituality is the basis of humanity. You can't get around it. Even the most reductionist materialist uses at least some form of transcendent myth to explain things which are difficult or maybe impossible to understand in human terms. There is nothing to replace it. Even our scientists are turning into mystics.

This isn't bad. Mysticism/transcendentalism is the basis of the human experience. The only problem I have with religion is when it takes literalist interpretations of Bronze Age myth and tries to enforce it upon others.

In other words, fascism in a cassock.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think if your "religion" forces you to pay money to achieve higher "levels" of membership then it's a joke.

I'll preface my response with the fact that I'm another agnostic heathen, if I need a label. I'm one of those "I'll find out when I die" people.

Anyways, I don't see that far of a jump between Scientology "forcing" you to pay money to achieve higher "levels" and Christianity's tithing. Are you not paying money, in effect, to prove your selflessness and willingness to help the church, fellow man, etc? And isn't the reason for doing any of those things (big picture here) to get a higher "level" and get your backside into heaven?

As far as governments go if your religion is big enough, has been around long enough, or is well funded and litigious enough, you've got a shot at being considered "legitimate". I don't see any new religions getting formally recognised anytime soon. TBQH the pastafarians potentially have a shot, simply with using their logic. I would think if they chose to use the American legal system they could easily end up being considered "legitimate" on a widespread scale.

I'm off to search for a "Why organised religion is just economics and forced morality" thread, cause I shouldn't make that point here.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think the question falls apart based on his agnostic w/ atheist leanings stance. Given his belief system, how can ANY religion be legitimate?

I think he needs to reword the question rather than define that term.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but you are correct. I personally don't see any religion as legitimate or superior to another. They are all the same to me. What I wanted to explore though is that clearly some religions are viewed by society as a whole as more acceptable, or more tolerable...but why? Age? Popularity?

From my agnostic/athiestic stance they all look alike to me, but it seems that there is definitely a hierarchy that has been established which defines which religions are "legitimate" or not. The point where you draw the line and why is an interesting discussion I think, especially when you are granting special rights or status.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cain

I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but you are correct. I personally don't see any religion as legitimate or superior to another. They are all the same to me. What I wanted to explore though is that clearly some religions are viewed by society as a whole as more acceptable, or more tolerable...but why? Age? Popularity?

From my agnostic/athiestic stance they all look alike to me, but it seems that there is definitely a hierarchy that has been established which defines which religions are "legitimate" or not. The point where you draw the line and why is an interesting discussion I think, especially when you are granting special rights or status.

That's why I think you have to reword the question. Despite my views on religion (which are probably similar to yours for the most part) I think there is a difference between them in terms of their actions and contributions to a society. That's where government comes in and what you are asking is what criteria should be used to determine which groups are worthy of some sort of recognized governmental status.

I think legitimacy is the wrong word.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think legitimacy is the wrong word.

Tax Exempt Status?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7303...xempt-religion

What constitutes religion? When and how should government make that determination? Questions that for years have vexed the world’s great philosophers have now become the province of the state comptroller’s office.

Questions about the issue were referred to Jesse Ancira, the comptroller’s top lawyer, who said Strayhorn has applied a consistent standard - and then stuck to it. For any organization to qualify as a religion, members must have “simply a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power,” he said.

“We have got to apply a test, and use some objective standards,” Ancira said. “We’re not using the test to deny the exemptions for a particular group because we like them or don’t like them.”

[Cain]

I think I just stole the legitimate part from the other thread and took it here. I hope people aren't getting caught up in semantics (though it is quite fun). A person in the other thread used the word legitimate to characterize some mainstream religions as opposed to some others. As I understood it, basically a hierarchy of accepted religions vs those that are still questionable. What determines that hierarchy I find interesting.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The thing with scientology is that there is some evidence (or at least rumours) that old L.Ron just made it all up and put it out there. Almost like an elaborate hoax, or maybe just to take money from gullible people.

The religions with longstanding traditions and founders who (I assume) truly believed in what they were preaching do seem more "legitimate" to me, even though I don't think any of them have a true story.

I think that early religions were invented to explain the unexplained. Natural phenomena, social injustice, cultural differences. But gradually, they transformed into tools to control those with little hope. And from there, the ones that benefited, helped transform religion into a form of social networking.

I don't see any of them as legitimate. I see all of them as methods to define different cultures and nothing else. They are barriers that need to be broken. They are ancient ways to communicate with like minded individuals and to rally people against other people by inventing 'devils' and claiming that the the other people believe in and follow. And that, IMO, is just another way of describing power. Religion is, was, and always will be a way to exert power over people and induce people to voluntarily follow, through fear of the big, scary unknown.

[MacFlame]

Just IMO....

My answer. No religion is more legitimate than any other...the "legitimate" ones are just those that are popular.

However, I am not totally against religion. I once watched a video (I believe on this forum) where the speaker talked about how humans are the only life form on the planet that can make decisions on very elaborate problems with such a large population. Basically his idea was that society needs both liberals and conservatives in order to make the "correct" decision. He was also saying that humans would not have evolved at all if these psychological differences didn't exist.

Although I'm agnostic, I'm starting to feel the same way about religion. Can society make the correct decisions if there is only 1 viewpoint? Can we evolve (as a whole) if there is no "give and take"? Do we (humans) "create" these religions unknowingly so that the species can evolve as a whole? I don't know.....but it has me thinking a lot.

I'm still pissed off though that tax dollars pay for a seperate school system.....but that's another thread.

[Vulcan]

The easy answer is, whatever my religion is, is the only legitimate religion. All others are false.

Personally, I don't have much use for religions but I respect anyone striving to know the meaning of life and religions often have a grain of truth behind them, if you know where to look.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Religion or spirituality is the basis of humanity. You can't get around it. Even the most reductionist materialist uses at least some form of transcendent myth to explain things which are difficult or maybe impossible to understand in human terms. There is nothing to replace it. Even our scientists are turning into mystics.

This isn't bad. Mysticism/transcendentalism is the basis of the human experience.

Wow.

I wish there was a converse to the "thanks" feature.

I mean, dude, I've read a lot of your posts, and we've had our fair share of debates, but this little beauty has to take the cake. I expect this kind of thing from CalgaryBornAgain.

I'd like you to attempt to back up what you just said.